Münsterberg's legacy: What does eyewitness research tell us about the reliability of eyewitness testimony?

Abstract

Münsterberg alerted us about the fallibility of eyewitness memory 100 years ago and we have come far in our understanding of the factors contributing to eyewitness error. A healthy empirical literature, including several meta-analytic reviews, suggests progress has been made in understanding the impact of various estimator and system variables on eyewitness performance. We begin by acknowledging Münsterberg's pioneering studies of eyewitness fallibility. We then turn to the methodological contribution of Buckhout (1974), a follower of Münsterberg. A selective review of research then highlights the scientific merits and pitfalls of the laboratory and archival approach to studying eyewitness behaviour. We end with a discussion of what experts can really tell the courts about the causal and associative relationships between various estimator and system variables.

Theory, logic and data: Paths to a more coherent eyewitness science

“…Lane and Meissner (2008) note how theory, along with converging operations and field studies, can bridge the applied-basic divide. Memon, Mastroberardino, and Fraser (2008) nicely describe the importance of the causal versus associative relation distinction. Sporer (2008) introduces a model of eyewitness testimony for organizing research.…”

Hugo who? G. F. Arnold's alternative early approach to psychology and law

“…In particular, the healthy debate over methodological issues and the adequacy of research findings shows that there is much work still to be done (e.g. Malpass et al, 2008;Memon, Mastroberardino, & Fraser, 2008;Penrod & Bornstein, 2006;Turtle et al, 2008). Second, do we have answers to any of the questions that Arnold and Münsterberg raised?…”

“…Yes. Several papers in the present issue illustrate nicely that there is an established scientific basis for drawing conclusions on a number of topics, such as the confidence-accuracy relation (Brewer & Weber, 2008;Deffenbacher, 2008), decision latency (Brewer & Weber, 2008), stress (Deffenbacher, 2008;Memon et al, 2008), the retention interval (Deffenbacher, 2008), and lineup composition and instructions (Clark, 2008). This is not to suggest that the book is necessarily 'closed' on these topics; research areas continually evolve as new questions arise, new methods are developed, and so forth (Malpass et al, 2008).…”

Mind the Gap: The Key to Advancing the Science and Policy on Alcohol-Intoxicated Witnesses is to expand the Study Population and Bridge the Researcher-Practitioner Gap

“…archival studies, laboratory experiments, quasi-experiments, field studies) when studying witness memory. The different approaches complement each other and help researchers to view the problem from different angles, which renders a more holistic knowledge base [26]. Given the importance of witness memory for the resolution of real-world crimes, researchers are encouraged to use different methodological approaches to study how alcohol and other drugs affect witness memory.…”